alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-3275-EM] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

      ( print page 19945)    

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-3275-EM), dated March 30, 2007, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

April 12, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of March 30, 2007: 

Cherokee, Ida, Osceola, and Webster Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B), including snow removal, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

 [FR Doc. E7-7563 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                           2,695
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                       775
<INVENTORY>                                     50,469
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,763
<PP&E>                                          81,634
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,685
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,588
<BONDS>                                         78,512
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,276
<SALES>                                         88,220
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,993
<CGS>                                           62,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    53
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,679
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,855
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,824
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (475)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,349
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MARVIN E. MYERS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-CV-255 

Judge Graham

Magistrate Judge King

D. BLACKWELL,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Ohio inmate, has filed an application for the entry

of defendants’ default. Doc. No. 27. The record reflects that plaintiff

has not provided all required service papers (i.e., a copy of the Amended

Complaint, a summons and a Marshal service form) for defendants Ohio

Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and Blackwell. Moreover, the

remaining defendants, who have been served with process, were granted

forty-five days after service in which to respond to the Amended

Complaint. See Order, Doc. No. 4. That time has not yet passed. In any

event, certain defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to

state a claim. Doc. No. 23. Plaintiff is ADVISED that he may have until

September 7, 2012 to respond to that motion. His failure to respond may

result in the grant of the motion to dismiss.

For all these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

application for the entry of defendants’ default, Doc. No. 27, be DENIED.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this

Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days,

file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation,

and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection

thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to

Case: 2:12-cv-00255-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 08/16/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served

with a copy thereof. F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de

novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision

of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

DATE: August 16, 2012

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00255-JLG-NMK Doc #: 28 Filed: 08/16/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(Reap. Dec. 9343)

#### King Shipping Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 714738.

(Decided March 11, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

It is provided by the rules of the court that, in such an instance, after the opposite party has had an opportunity to present evidence *557on the issues, the case may he decided by the court on the record before it.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the present appeal for a reappraisement and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will he entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 93 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 93

  Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to accomplishing the 
                            mission in Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2006

  Mr. Harkin submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to accomplishing the 
                            mission in Iraq.

Whereas the members of the United States Armed Forces have served honorably and 
        courageously in Iraq;
Whereas Congress and the people of the United States owe a debt of gratitude to 
        those members of the Armed Forces who have died fighting for their 
        country; and
Whereas Iraq will have established a free and democratic government once it 
        completes its constitution-making process: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the United States should not maintain a permanent 
        military presence or military bases in Iraq;
            (2) the United States should not attempt to control the 
        flow of Iraqi oil; and
            (3) United States Armed Forces should be redeployed from 
        Iraq as soon as practicable after the completion of Iraq's 
        constitution-making process or December 31, 2006, whichever 
        occurs first.
                                 <all>
```
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-11257 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. NOE DELAROSA, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-152-2
Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Noe Delarosa a ppeals from his conviction of illegal possession o f a machine gun and aiding and abetting. He argues that the district c ourt erred by denying him a three-level downward adjustment to his o ffense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. He assert s t h at the district court incorrectly characterized as frivolous his o bjection to a four-level upward adjustment under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A) f or knowing or h avin g r e a son to know that U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Septem ber 12, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-11257 Document: 00512371593 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2013No. 12-11257

the firearms his group purchased fro m u n dercover a gents w ere intended to be transported to Mexico. The denial o f the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was not without f

oundation. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 5 13 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008). F irst, Delarosa refused to a nswer questions d uring his interview

w ith the probation officer about the destination of the firearms or the purp o s e for which they were being purchased. S econd, the transcripts of surveillance videos indicated that D elarosa either k n ew or should have known t hat the firearms were destined for Mexico. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-11257 Document: 00512371593 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2013
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

McHUGH, INC.,

Appellant,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

CASE NO. C2-12-061

JAMES V. WARD, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Appellee.

McHUGH, INC.,

Appellant,

CASE NO. C2-12-062

v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

EDWARD C. THOMPSON, JR.

Appellee.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed September 27, 2012, JUDGMENT is

hereby entered DISMISSING these cases.

Date: September 27, 2012 JOHN P. HEHMAN, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:12-cv-00062-EAS Doc #: 12 Filed: 09/27/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2014 - 0499 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2013 - SW - 061 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. Yes 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. 

### Bell ASB 430 - 13 - 51 Revision A, dated June 12, 2014. Bell is now offering replacement parts (warranty). Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all o f the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree becaus e **For additional issues, double -**  **click here** 

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
Reap. Dec. 8954.

#### Bunge *Corporation*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
#### Bobby EPPERSON, Special Administrator of the Estate of Leon L. THOMPSON, Deceased v. Phoebe BIGGS

CA 85-192

705 S.W.2d 901

Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division I

Opinion delivered April 2, 1986

*Gordon & Gordon, P.A.,*by: *Nathan Gordon,*for appellant.

*Felver A. Rowell, Jr.,*for appellee.

George K. Cracraft, Chief Judge.

Bobby Epperson, Special Administrator of the Estate of Leon L. Thompson, deceased, brings this appeal from an order of the circuit court denying his motion to dismiss an action for damages brought by Phoebe Biggs against the estate of Leon L. Thompson. We do not reach any of the arguments for reversal because we find that the *213order appealed from was not appealable.

On August 3, 1979 Phoebe Biggs was involved in an automobile accident with Leon Thompson and later filed suit against Thompson in circuit court to recover damages for injuries allegedly received as a result of that accident. Upon discovering that Thompson was then deceased, appellant was appointed special administrator, but his authority was restricted to accepting process in the pending damage action. Service was had upon the special administrator in that action, but appellee subsequently took a voluntary nonsuit.

Several months later, appellee again filed suit against the Estate of Leon L. Thompson and caused service of summons to then be served on appellant, who appeared and filed an answer. Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the action alleging that as his appointment as special administrator was for the limited purpose of receiving process in the earlier action, he was not authorized to receive process in the second one, and that service therefore had not been properly had upon the Estate of Leon L. Thompson. He further alleged that as both the three-year statute of limitations and the one-year statutory period following the nonsuit had then passed, the cause of action should be dismissed with prejudice. The trial court denied that motion and this appeal follows.

We decline to address any of the arguments advanced by the appellant in support of his appeal because the denial of a motion to dismiss an action is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 2. In order for a judgment to be final, it must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in controversy. *Roberts Enterprises, Inc.*v. *Arkansas State Hwy.*Commission, 277 Ark. 25, 638 S.W.2d 75 (1982); *Roy*v. *International Multifoods Corp.,*268 Ark. 958, 597 S.W.2d 129 (Ark. App. 1980). The only matter disposed of by the order appealed from was that the case should proceed to trial, and those matters put in issue are not lost by continuing through a trial of the matter. *Heber Springs Lawn & Garden, Inc.*v. *F.M.C. Corp.,*275 Ark. 260, 628 S.W.2d 563 (1982).

The appeal is dismissed and the case remanded to the circuit court.

*214Cooper and Glaze, JJ., agree.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Case No. 2:12-cr-00055 

v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST 

 

SONTAY T. SMOTHERMAN 

ORDER

 Before the Court is a “Motion to Correct Error” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(a). (ECF No. 350.) Defendant argues that he appealed a ruling of this Court but 

that the Court of Appeals failed to docket the same. This matter is one for the Court of Appeals. 

The Court accordingly DENIES the motion. 

 Also before the Court is an “objection to order.” (ECF No. 352.) No action is required 

because there exists no procedural mechanism for a party to “object” to a Court order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 GREGORY L. FROST 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:12-cr-00055-GLF-TPK Doc #: 353 Filed: 11/17/15 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2008260EN.01000201.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/2

---

Assignment of Mr O'Higgins to Chambers

(2008/C 260/02)

On 17 September 2008, the Plenary Meeting of the Court of First Instance decided, following Mr O'Higgins's taking up of his duties as a Judge, to amend as follows the decisions of the Plenary Meetings of 25 September 2007 and 8 July 2008 on the assignment of the Judges to Chambers.

For the period from 17 September 2008 to 30 September 2008, and then for the period from 1 October 2008 to 31 August 2010, the following assignments are made:

Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr O'Higgins, Judges.

Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr O'Higgins, Judges.

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber;

Ms Labucka, Judge;

Mr O'Higgins, Judge.

---
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Immuron Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended June 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Vaughan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



November 2, 2017



| | By: | /s/ Peter Vaughan      
| | --- | -----------------------
| |     | Peter Vaughan          
| |     | Chief Financial
Officer



* The originally executed copy of this
Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 7 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 7

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              relative to equal rights for men and women.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2005

 Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
   Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
  Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
Harkin, and Mr. Dodd) introduced the following joint resolution; which 
     was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              relative to equal rights for men and women.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied 
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by 
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    ``Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date 
of ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 48670.

#### Protest 740602-G of Scaramelli & Co., Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstract 42146. An allowance of 2)4 percent was therefore made to compensate for the foreign substances. An allowance of 1 percent was made in the weight of cheese stipulated to be similar in all material respects to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protest was therefore sustained to this extent.